T 

<H 


e ^ vn . * 

b — o 

"A  MORE  AMPLE  ORDINATION.” 

SERMON  IN  REPLY 

TO  THE 

“FIRST  SUBSIDIARY  REASON’’ 

GIVEN  BY 

Bishop  WM.  BACON  STEVENS,  of  the  P.  E.  Church, 

On  Friday,  September  30th,  18S1,  for 

RE-ORDIIHING  t MOM  PRESBYTER 

A DEACON. 

By  the  Rev.  W.  H.  RICE, 

Pastor  of  the  First  Moravian  Church. 

On  Sunday  Evening,  October  9th,  1881. 


Published  by  Official  Request  of  the  Board  of  Elders 
of  the  First  Moravian  Church  in  Philadelphia. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

Treager  & Lamb,  Printers,  No.  32  South  Seventh  Street. 

18S1. 


fct 


A MORE  AMPLE  ORDINATION.” 


SERMON  IN  REPLY 

TO  THE 

“FIRST  SUBSIDIARY  REASON” 

GIVEN  HY 

Bishop  WM.  BACON  STEVENS,  of  the  P.  E.  Church, 

On  Friday,  September  30th,  1881,  for 

RE-OBDilNIHG  1 HIORiVIM  PRESBYTER 

A D E ACON. 

By  the  Rev.  W.  H.  RICE, 

Pastor  op  the  First  Moravian  Church. 


On  Sunday  Evening,  October  9th,  1881. 


Published  by  Official  Request  of  the  Board  of  Elders 
of  the  First  Moravian  Church  in  Philadelphia. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

'I  reader  & Lamb,  Priniers,  No.  32  South  Seventh  Street. 

1881. 


PREFATORY. 


At  the  Morning  Service,  Sunday,  October  2d,  1SS1,  in  the 
First  Moravian  Chuich,  Franklin  and  Wood  streets,  t he  Pastor, 
the  Rev.  W.  H.  Rice,  made  the  following  announcement  : 

“ It  was  mv  melancholy  privilege  to  attend,  last  Friday  morning, 
September  30th,  1881,  at  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the 
Atonement,  Seventeenth  and  Summer  streets,  an  ordination  service 
“ held  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  William  Bacon  Stevens,”  at  which  the  Rev. 
Walter  Jordan,  a former  baptized  and  confirmed  member  of  this 
Congregation,  and  a recent  associate  in  the  ordained  ministry  and 
work  of  our  Brethren’s  Church,  was  Re-ordained  a Deacon. 

“ Bishop  Stevens  gave  as  his  ‘ First  Subsidiary  Reason’  for  Re- 
ordaining a Moravian  Presbyter,  that  he  would  thus  ordain  our 
Brother  Jordan  with  ‘a  more  ample  ordination'  than  that  with 
which  Bishop  Edmund  de  Schweinitz  had  ordained  him  a Deacon, 
in  this  very  sanctuary,  on  Sunday  evening,  August  6th,  1876;  with 
‘ a more  ample  ordination'  than  that  with  which  Bishops  Henry  A. 
Shultz,  Amadeus  A.  Reinke,  and  Edmund  de  Schweinitz,  had 
ordained  Brother  Jordan,  a Presbyter,  in  Hope,  Indiana,  at  the 
Provincial  Synod,  October  13th,  1878. 

“ It  is  fit,  on  this  first  possible  opportunity,  that  I should  publicly, 
in  the  same  pulpit  in  which,  in  the  years  since  1742,  the  Bishops 
Zinzendorf,  Spangenberg,  Wolle,  Shultz  and  De  Schweinitz,  have 
preached  the  Gospel  (names  which  Bishop  Stevens  mentioned  in  his 
fulsome  adulation  of  our  Denomination),  resent  the  insult  which 
he  has  thus  put  upon  the  Ministry  of  our  Ancient  and  Renewed 
Brethren’s  Church.  I propose  to  take  up  the  Rt.  Rev.  Wm.  Bacon 
Stevens’  dishonest  interpretation  of  our  simple  Ordination  formula, 
on  which  he  bases  his  ‘ more  ample  ordination  views,  for  our  con- 


4 


sideration,  on  next  Sunday  evening  October  gth,  1881,  God  will- 
ing, or  as  soon  thereafter  as  possible.” 

Philadelphia,  October  yi,  1881. 

“As  one  who  was  present  at  the  recent  ordination  of  the  Rev. 
Walter  Jordan,  and  listened  to  Bishop  Stevens’  sermon  on  the  oc- 
casion, I have  been  greatly  grieved  to  see  the  course  that  criticism 
has  taken,  both  with  reference  to  the  act  itself  and  to  the  sermon 
that  was  preached.  Being  myself  of  the  number  of  those  who 
doubted  the  propriety  of  the  ordination,  I can  only  say,  that,  going 
into  the  Vestry-room  at  the  conclusion  of  the  service,  I could  not 
but  express  to  the  Bishop  my  entire  satisfaction  with  the  reasons  he 
had  given  for  the  course  which  he  deemed  it  incumbent  on  him  to 

But  now  as  for  the  expression  in  the  sermon  which  has  been 
particularly  cavilled  at, *  * * * * (Bishop  Stevens)  referred, 

as  entirely  subsidiary  to  his  main  argument,  to  the  words  in  the 
Moravian  ordination  service  as  compared  with  those  in  our  own  -T 
and  did  undoubtedly  say,  that  the  latter  conferred  a more  ample 
ordination*  than  the  former.” 

BENJAMIN  WATSON, 

Rector  of  the  Church  of  the  Atonement . 

Philadelphia,  October  \\th , 1 88 1 . 

* Extract  from  a letter  written  to,  and  published  in  the  Moravian,  the  official 
organ  of  the  American  Moravian  Synod,  October  19th,  1851,  (Vol.  XXVII,  No. 
3),  by  the  Rev.  I)r.  Benjamin  Watson,  Rector  of  the  Church  of  the  Atonement. 
The  italicized  words  in  the  Extract,  are  in  the  original  manuscript  letter. 


SERMON. 


“ That  they  {who  believe  on  Me  through  their  won l)  may  all  be 
One  ; even  as  Thou,  Father,  art  in  Me,  and  I in  Thee,  that  they  also 
may  be  in  Us  ; that  the  Ivor  Id  may  believe  that  Thou  didst  send  Me.  ’ ’ 

John  xvii,  2 1 . 


For  the  unity  in  spirit  of  the  Church  of  God  in 
the  earth,  our  Blessed  Lord  and  Master  prayed  with 
highpriestly  fervor  and  efficacy  of  petition  to  God  the 
Father,  on  the  night  before  His  cruel  death  on  Cal- 
vary’s cross.  For  the  unity  in  spirit  of  the  Church  of 
God  in  the  earth,  the  membership  of  the  Moravian 
Brethren’s  Church,  the  eldest  in  the  sisterhood  of 
Protestant  Churches,  has  never  ceased  to  pray,  to 
testify  and  to  labor,  to  endure  persecutions  of  fire 
and  of  sword,  to  die,  if  need  be,  the  death  of  heroic 
martyrdom,  ever  since  this  Church  raised  the  first 
Protestant  standard  as  a denominational  organization, 
amid  the  mountains  of  Bohemia,  in  1457 — sixty  years 
before  Martin  Luther  first  raised  the  standard  of  the 
German  Reformation,  and  more  than  one  hundred 
years  before  the  Anglican  Church  was  fully  estab- 
lished, from  which  the  Protestant  Episcopalians  in 
America  are  descended. 

In  the  light  of  her  history,  since  the  downfall  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  the  Church  of  God  in  the  earth,  has 
more  to  fear  from  the  toes  who  are  within,  of  her  own 


6 


household,  than  from  any  or  from  all  the  foes  who 
threaten  her  from  without. 

Jesuitical  Sectarianism,  which  aims  to  set  up  one 
branch  or  one  section  of  the  Church  of  God  as  the 
sole  representative  of  the  true  Kingdom  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  at  the  cost  of  peaceful  fellowship  with 
all  the  remaining  branches  or  denominations  within 
the  Church,  has  rent  and  torn  Christ’s  body,  the 
Church,  of  which  He  is  alone  the  Head  ; and  it  has 
done  more  to  hinder  the  progress  of  Christ’s  work  of 
Salvation,  than  the  Unbelief  of  the  world. 

The  prelatical  Pharisaism  which,  under  the  garb  of 
Protestantism,  apes  the  presumptions  of  the  Roman 
papacy,  and  would  lift  itself  above  its  fellows,  claiming. 
We  are  the  only  True  Church,  and  are  destined  to 
universal  regency,  is,  in  this  age  of  the  world,  the 
most  direct  attempt  that  can  be  made,  to  defeat  the 
realization  of  Christ’s  highpriestly  prayer  for  the 
unity  in  spirit  of  all  who  believe  in  the  precious 
Gospel  of  Salvation  ; and  in  the  front  rank  of  those 
who  oppose  this  ecclesiastical  Infidelity,  and  who 
testify  against  that  fell  Sectarian  spirit  that  would 
unchurch  those  of  the  Church  of  God  who  do  not 
belong  to  their  “ restricted  ” communion,  stands  our 
own  Moravian  Brethren’s  Church,  because  she  has 
learned  in  the  school  of  fiery  and  blood)’  Roman 
Persecution  the  true  character  of  this  Sacramentarian 
Exclusivism,  and  because  it  has  been  so  deeply  graven 
into  her  history,  by  the  murderous  hand  of  Jesuit 
zealots,  that  this  hierarchical  Infidelity  gives  the  lie  to 
the  very  words  of  the  Blessed  Master:  “ One  is  your 

Master , even  Christ , and  all  ye  are  Brethren 

1 he  position  which  our  Moravian  Brethren’s  Church 


7 


has  maintained  for  the  well-nigh  Four  Hundred  and 
Twenty-five  Years  of  her  denominational  organization, 
is  thus  set  forth  in  the  Law-book  of  the  Church  : 

Chapter  I,  Paragraph  4.  “ While  the  Brethren’s  Unity,  both  in 
ancient  and  in  modern  times,  has,  by  her  distinctive  Constitution 
and  Episcopal  orders,  taken  the  position  of  a separate  Church,  she 
has,  nevertheless,  always  considered  herself  a member  of  the  one, 
universal,  Christian  Church,  the  Head  of  which  is  Christ,  and, 
particularly,  a part  of  the  Protestant  Church,  whose  standard  of 
doctrine  are  the  Holy  Scriptures  alone.” 

“Our  Church  has  ever  maintained  and  practically 
exhibited  the  position  of  a true  Union  Church,  in 
which  individual  Christians  of  even’  Protestant  de- 
nomination can  meet  as  on  common  ground,  and 
which  also,  as  a Church,  labors  in  particular  for  the 
accomplishment  of  the  highpriestly  prayer  ot  our 
Saviour,  with  regard  to  the  members  of  the  true,  one 
Church  of  Christ  in  all  denominations  : That  they 

all  may  be  One  ! ” 

In  practical  demonstration  of  this  union-spirit,  our 
Moravian  Brethren's  Church  receives  into  full  Com- 
municant membership  any  member  of  any  sister 
denomination,  on  the  simple  certificate  ot  good  stand- 
ing in  the  same  ; invites  any  Communicant  member  of 
a sister  denomination  to  a place  at  the  Lord’s  Com- 
munion-table. In  reference  to  the  reception  into  her 
communion,  of  Clergymen  of  any  sister  denomination, 
the  Law-book  says  : 

Chapter  IX,  Paragraph  62.  “ Such  Ministers  as  have  received  Or- 
dination in  Protestant  Churches,  and  have  already  served  a Congre- 
gation in  this  office,  with  the  Word  and  Sacraments,  and  in  the 
care  of  Souls,  are  recognized  as  Presbyters”  [without  Re-ordinatioti] 
“ when  they  become  members  of  the  Brethren’s  Church,  and  fill  a 
spiritual  office  in  the  same.’’ 


8 


In  a word,  the  fellowshiping  of  all  sister  denomina- 
tions, in  the  fullest  possible  sense  of  the  word,  is  a 
part  of  the  Constitution  of  our  Moravian  Brethren’s 
■Church. 

I think,  therefore,  you  will  bear  me  out  in  affirming 
that,  this  Church  of  earnest  Protestant  confessors, 
which  took  up  as  an  organized  denomination  in  1457, 
the  banner  of  the  Universal  Priesthood  of  all  Be- 
lievers in  the  Gospel  of  Salvation,  by  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  of  an  open  Bible,  as  the  sole  Rule 
of  Faith  ; which  was  organized  as  a Unity  of  Brethren 
having  this  shibboleth,  One  is  your  Master , ajid  All 
ye  are  Brethren , in  an  age  when  God’s  heritage  in  the 
Christian  world  was  lorded  over  by  hierarchical  poten- 
tates and  princes,  who  asserted  and  maintained  their 
supreme  and  absolute  dominion  over  the  minds  and 
consciences,  the  souls  and  the  bodies,  the  prerogatives 
and  possessions  of  kings  and  of  subjects  ; this 
Church  of  the  Moravian  Brethren  has  maintained, 
with  heroic  consistency,  through  all  the  wonderful 
mutations  of  the  Four  Centuries  and  a Quarter  of  her 
history,  her  sincere  devotion  to  the  Unity  of  the  disci- 
ples of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  of  every  name,  under 
the  banner  of  Calvary’s  cross. 

We  are  to  consider,  specially,  this  evening,  some 
features  in  the  recent  official  conduct  of  a leading 
clergyman  in  a sister  denomination,  which  characterize 
the  spirit  in  which  that  denomination  proclaims  its 
inability,  officially  to  fellowship  this  eldest  sister 
of  the  Protestant  Faith,  a sister,  by  the  way,  for  which 
the  same  denomination  constantly  affects  most  extrava- 
gant, un-official,  esteem  and  affection. 

On  Sunday  evening,  6th  of  August,  1876,  Brother 


9 


Walter  Jordan,  a baptized  and  confirmed  member  of 
this  First  Moravian  Brethren’s  Congregation,  of  Phila- 
delphia, was  ordained  a Deacon,  by  Bishop  Edmund 
de  Schweinitz  of  the  Brethren’s  Church,  who  preached 
the  ordination  sermon  on  the  text,  "For  zue  are  God's 
fe/lozv-workers : i Cor.  iii.  9. 

The  official  church  paper,  the  Moravian , of  August 
17th,  reports:  “A  very  large  and  deeply  solemnized 
congregation  was  present.  Brother  Jordan  is  the 
first  young  man,  born  and  confirmed  in  the  First 
Church,  who  has  entered  the  Moravian  Ministry,  and 
his  friends  joyfully  gathered  to  bid  him  God-speed.’’ 

I am  sure  some  of  those  who  are  present  this  even- 
ing, were  present  on  that  occasion,  a little  more  than 
five  vears  ago,  and  remember  the  circumstances  ot 
such  solemn  and  peculiar  interest  to  which  I allude. 

You  doubtless  remember  the  laying  ot  Bishop  de 
Schweinitz’s  hands  upon  the  head  of  Brother  Jordan, 
as  he  solemnly  ordained  him,  with  your  accompanying 
prayers,  “ to  be  a Deacon  of  the  Church  of  the  United 
Brethren , in  the  Name  of  the  Father , and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  You  heard  the  Choir  sing 
the  Doxology,  beginning, 

* ‘ Glory  be  to  Thy  most  meritorious  Ministry , 

O,  Thou  Servant  of  the  true  Tabernacle  /" 

and  you  joined  in  the  "Amen!  Hallelujah!"  by  way 
of  joyous  affirmation. 

The  Law-book  of  the  Church  thus  interprets  the 
signification  of  the  rite  of  Ordination  which  you  here 
witnessed,  on  that  Sunday  evening  in  August,  1876. 

Chapter  IX,  Paragraph  59.  “ The  Ministry  in  the  Protestant 
Church  of  the  Brethren,  in  consequence  of  which  she  enjoys  a 
sphere  of  activity  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  which  is  independent 


IO 


and  undisputed  as  regards  her  relation  to  other  Churches,  is  based 
on  the  Ordination  of  Bishops,  Presbyters  and  Deacons.  All  those 
who  minister  in  the  Word  and  Sacraments  receive  the  outward 
legitimate  authorization  for  Church  transactions,  through  ordination 
exclusively  imparted  by  Bishops.  As,  however,  they  are  set  apart 
for  one  or  the  other  Church  degree  in  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  with  imposition  of  hands,  and 
with  invocation  of  the  Lord,  the  Head  of  the  Church,  in  his  imme- 
diate presence,  and  accompanied  by  the  prayers  of  the  assembled 
congregation,  we  consider  them  as  especially  blessed  by  the  Lord 
for  the  important  Commission.-  to  feed  the  Church  of  God 
[Acts  xx,  28]  which  He  hath  purchased  with  His  own  Blood.” 

This  clearly  sets  forth  that  our  simple  formula  of 
Ordination  means,  according-  to  the  Constitution  of 
our  Church,  and  is  interpreted  by  our  Church  as 
meaning  that,  our  Deacons,  a.s  well  as  our  Presbyters 
and  Bishops,  are  Ministers  in  “the  Church  of  God” 
and  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  ‘amplest,”  the 
“bioadest,”  and  “widest”  sense  of  the  word  in  which 
it  can  be  predicated  of  any  minister  in  any  Protestant 
denomination. 

It  shows  that  nothing  less  can  be  affirmed,  accord- 
ing- to  the  standard  law  of  our  Moravian  Brethren’s 
Church,  of  the  simple  Ordination  formula,  as  inter- 
preted by  that  standard,  than  that  Brother  Walter 
Jordan’s  ordination  as  a Deacon  of  the  Brethren’s 
Church,  made  him,  in  the  “amplest”  sense  of  the 
word,  a Deacon  in  the  Church  of  God  in  the  earth,  a 
Minister  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  as  full  and  as 
ample  a sense  as  any  Deacon  in  any  Church,  which 
maintains  the  three  orders  of  the  Christian  Ministry. 

Do  any  of  you  remember,  when  listening  to  the 
ordination  sermon  of  your  former  honored  Pastor,  the 
ordaining  Bishop,  the  Rt.  Rev.  Edmund  de  Schvveinitz, 
that  he,  when  preaching  on  the  text,  “ For  we  are 


God's  fellow ■ workers, ’ ’ and  when  holding  up  the 
dignity  and  the  power  of  the  ministry  ot  Jesus  Christ 
in  the  Church  of  God,  said,  or  intimated  by  anything 
he  said,  that  whilst  he  believed  in  the  validity  of  this 
ordination  as  equal  with  the  validity  of  any  that 
claimed  “apostolic  succession’’  for  its  authorization, 
yet  it  was  less  " ample  ? ” The  question  answers 
itself.  It  was  reserved  for  another  occasion,  for  a 
Bishop  of  a younger,  sister  denomination,  to  raise  the 
question  of  a “more  ample  ordination,”  in  order  to 
justify  his  flying  in  the  face  of  all  historical  fact  and 
precedent,  and  his  giving  the  lie  to  our  own  interpre- 
tation of  our  Ordinal. 

1 was  present  in  the  Moravian  Church,  at  Hope, 
Indiana,  on  Sunday  evening,  the  13th  of  October, 
1878,  almost  three  years  ago,  when  Brother  Walter 
Jordan,  with  four  other  Deacons,  was  ordained  a 
Presbyter.  The  three  Bishops,  Henry  A.  Shultz, 
Amadeus  A.  Reinke  and  Edmund  de  Schweinitz, 
took  part  in  the  ordination  services.  1 never  heard 
the  slightest  intimation  of  any  views  which  militated 
against  that  positive  interpretation  of  the  meaning, 
intent  and  scope,  of  our  Ordination  formula,  which  our 
Law-book  necessitates  : as  the  important  Commission, 
TO  FEED  THE  CliURCH  OF  GoD  (Acts  XX,  28)  WHICH  He 
HATH  PURCHASED  WITH  HlS  OWN  BLOOD. 

On  Friday,  the  last  day  of  September  just  past,  I 
was  present  at  an  ordination  service,  which  had  been 
announced,  in  the  public  journals,  to  “be  held  ” in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  Atonement,  Sev- 
enteenth and  Summer  Streets,  in  this  city,  by  the  Rt. 
Rev.  Wm.  Bacon  Stevens,  of  the  P.  E.  Church. 
Seated  before  the  chancel  railing-  was  our  brother,. 


the  Rev.  Walter  Jordan,  my  former  associate  in  the 
ordained  Ministry  and  work  of  our  Moravian  Breth- 
ren’s Church,  whom  the  Rt.  Rev.  Edmund  de 
Schweinitz  had  ordained  a Deacon,  in  this  church,  in 
August,  1876,  and  a Presbyter,  in  the  Moravian 
Church  at  Hope,  Indiana,  in  October,  1878.  For 
four  years  he  had  been  engaged  in  the  pastorate  of 
two  of  our  churches,  in  Lebanon,  Pennsylvania,  and  in 
Canal  Dover,  Ohio.  Having  been  a pastor  in  the 
Moravian  Church,  of  four  years’  standing,  twice 
ordained  by  her  Bishops,  Bishop  Stevens,  on  Friday 
morning,  began  the  service  of  the  Re-ordination  of 
Brother  Jordan,  under  a painful  sense  of  the  awk- 
wardness of  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  shared 
alike  by  the  officiating  Bishop  and  by  his  slim  audience 
of  from  twenty  to  thirty  people.  For  was  he  not 
about  to  commit  the  grossest  breach  of  ecclesiastical 
comity  and  fellowship  over  against  the  eldest  sister  of 
the  Protestant  faith  ? for  which  he  had  no  precedent, 
but  for  which  he  deemed  it  the  path  of  “ Wisdom  ” to 
set,  so  ruthlessly,  this  precedent,  as  he  afterwards 
assured  us,  in  the  midst  ol  many  flattering  and  sweet 
things  which  he  said  of  the  dear  Moravian  Brethren. 

After  announcing  to  his  auditors  that  the  result  of 
his  own  investigation  of  the  question,  years  ago,  in 
connection  with  literary  labors  in  Georgia,  had  only 
been  strengthened  and  confirmed  by  the  later  results 
of  subsequent  investigations,  carried  on  by  others, 
viz. : that  the  VALIDITY  of  the  ordination  by  the 
Bishops  of  the  Moravian  Brethren’s  Church,  dated 
bac  k pari  passu  with  that  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church,  to  the  Apostles;  Bishop  Stevens 
declared  that,  in  view  of  the  appointment  of  two 


special  committees  to  consider  the  question  of  the 
I’a/uiity  of  Episcopal  ordination  in  the  Moravian 
Brethren’s  Church,  (one  committee  by  the  recent 
Lambeth  Convocation  of  Bishops,  and  one  by  the 
American  P.  E.  General  Convention),  he  would 
eschew  the  path  of  “ Boldness”  in  setting  a precedent 
by  admitting  this  Moravian  Presbyter  into  the  minis- 
try of  the  P.  E.  Church,  without  Re-ordination,  even  a 
hypothetical  ordination  (“  If  you  are  not  already 
ordained,  1 ordain,  etc.”),  and  he  would  take  the  path 
of  “Wisdom,”  and  treat  our  brother  Presbyter  as 
though  “ Apostolic  ordination  ” had  never  been  con- 
ferred upon  him. 

It  is  not  my  province  to  criticise  this  position  ot  our 
Brother  Stevens,  which  he  assumed  over  against  the 
views  of  many  of  the  most  scholarly  ministers  and 
devoted  members  of  his  own  denomination,  who  deeply 
and  sincerely  regret  that,  the  brother  did  not  see  his 
way  clear  to  setting  a precedent  in  the  direction  ol 
what  he  confessed,  with  emphasized  re-iteration,  to  be 
his  own  personal  conviction  ot  what  is  due  to  our 
Episcopal  ordination. 

It  is  no  compliment  to  our  Moravian  communion  to 
intimate  that  we  ask  any  clergyman,  of  another 
denomination,  to  violate  the  law  of  his  church  in  any 
matter  that  may  seem  to  affect  us. 

Bishop  Stevens  pleads  the  canon  law  of  the  P.  E. 
Church,  as  set  against  receiving  a Moravian  Presbyter 
into  the  ministry  of  his  denomination,  without  Re-or- 
daining him  a Deacon. 

If,  then,  it  is  simply  a matter  of  Obedience  to  the 
canon  law  of  the  P.  E Church,  why  all  these  protes- 


1 4 

tations  as  to  a path  of  “ Wisdom  ” over  against  a path 
of  “ Boldness  ? ” 

The  path  of  Obedience  ought  to  be  the  path  of 
“Wisdom  ” and  the  path  of  “Boldness.” 

Now  we  Moravian  Brethren  did  not  help  to  enact 
the  canon  laws  of  our  younger,  sister  denomination, 
and  we  ought  not  and  do  not  intrude  any  criticism  of 
what  concerns  only  our  neighbors. 

But  will  not  our  brethren  of  the  P.  E.  Church 
excuse  us  for  having  cherished  some  little  curiosity  on 
our  part,  as  to  how  a Moravian  Presbyter  who  had 
exercised  any  man’s  right,  on  leaving  the  Church  of 
his  fathers,  to  make  application  to  be  received  into 
the  communion  and  ministry  of  the  P.  E.  Church,  how 
such  a Moravian  Presbyter  would  fare ! 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  loves  and  honors 
us,  because,  as  history  tells  us,  the  Methodists  caught 
the  fire  from  our  Moravian  altar;  the  Congregational, 
the  Lutheran,  the  Reformed,  the  Presbyterian  and  the 
other  Evangelical  Churches,  treat  us  as  their  equals,  on 
a footing  of  perfect  equality  with  them,  our  younger 
sisters  in  the  Protestant  household  of  faith.  But,  ah  ! 
what  Moravian  brother  or  sister  who  has  ever  heard  the 
praises  of  his  or  her  Moravian  communion  sounded 
forth  with  “apostolic”  unction  from  P.  E.  pulpits,  can 
ever  forget  it?  The  tone  in  which  the  descendants 
in  America,  of  our  younger  Anglican  sister,  have  gen- 
erally condescended  to  speak  of  their  dear  Moravian 
Brethren,  does  any  one  wonder  that  it  has  had  the 
effect,  in  anticipation  of  this  recent  opportunity  to  set 
a precedent,  to  stir  our  feelings  of  curiosity  what  all 
this  unofficial  admiration  and  conviction  would  actually 
amount  to,  when  these  might,  perhaps,  have  the  oppor- 


1 5 


tunity  of  running  into  the  mold  of  an  official  prece- 
dent ? 

Our  brother  in  the  P.  E.  faith,  fairly  outshone  any 
other  Episcopalian,  1 have  ever  heard,  in  the  utterance 
of  his  admiration  of  his  dear  Moravian  Brethren. 

A quotation  from  “a  distinguished  clergyman  of  the 
Church  of  England,”  in  reference  to  the  Brethren’s 
Church,  which  was  read,  was  only  the  text  upon  which 
our  Brother  Stevens  grew  “more  ample”  in  express- 
ing his  own  battering  estimate  of  our  Church.  Bishop 
Edmund  de  Schweinitz,  as  “a  lineal  descendant  ” of 
the  Bishop,  Count  Zinzendorf,  was  mentioned  by  name, 
in  more  than  formal  utterance  of  admiration  and 
esteem,  for  his  learning,  liberality  and  zeal.  It  was 
thrilling, — the  eloquence  with  which  Bishop  Stevens 
portrayed  the  scene  when,  at  the  dedication  of  the 
P.  E.  Church  of  the  Nativity  in  South  Bethlehem,  Pa., 
seventeen  years  ago,  the  Moravian  Bishops,  the  Rt. 
Rev.  Henry  A.  Shultz,  the  late  Rt.  Rev.  Peter  Wolle, 
and  the  Rev.  Edmund  de  Schweinitz  (since  ordained, 
validly  and  amply,  a Bishop),  on  the  gracious  invita- 
tion of  the  P.  E.  Bishop  Stevens,  entered  within  the 
chancel  rails.  The  “ important  speech  from  the 
chancel,”  delivered  on  that  happy  occasion  by  the 
validly  and  amply  ordained  Presbyter,  de  Schweinitz, 
was  remembered,  on  this  melancholy  occasion,  by  a 
quotation. 

I repeat,  in  spite  of  all  this  explanation  which  took 
up  so  large  a part  ot  the  ordination  discourse  of  our 
Episcopalian  brother,  I see  no  room  for  criticism  on 
the  part  of  any  outsider,  even  on  the  part  of  a Mora- 
vian brother  or  sister,  of  the  fact  that  Brother  Stevens 


1 6 


sheltered  himself  behind  the  battery  of  his  ecclesi- 
astical artillery — the  canon  law  of  the  P.  E.  Church. 

But  it  is  my  province  to  reply  to  what  was  intro- 
duced as  the  “ First  ” of  several  “ Subsidiary  Reasons," 
why  this  Moravian  Presbyter  should  be  Re-ordained 
a Deacon,  before  he  could  be  admitted  into  the 
ministry  of  the  P.  E.  Church. 

Phis  “First  Subsidiary  Reason”  was,  in  substance, 
stated  thus : when  our  Brother  Jordan  was  ordained 
by  the  Moravian  Bishop,  he  was  ordained  in  these 
words . “ I ordain  Thee  a Deacon  of  the  Brethren’s 
Church;”  but  this  morning  I will  ordain  him  “a 
Deacon  in  the  Church  of  God.”  Therefore  he  will 
receive  a more  ample  ordination  than  the  one 
restricted  to  the  Moravian  Brethren’s  Church. 

1 have  already  quoted  to  you  the  paragraph  from 
the  standard  Law-book  of  our  Moravian  Church,  which 
sets  forth  the  meaning,  intent  and  scope,  of  our  simple 
Ordination  formula:  as  the  important  Commission  to 
FEED  THE  CHURCH  OF  God  (Acts  XX,  28)  WHICH  He 
HATH  PURCHASED  WITH  HlS  OWN  BLOOD. 

What  more  convincing  evidence  need  be  brought 
forward  to  prove  that,  according  to  our  formularies 
and  standards,  the  Deacons,  Presbyters  and  Bishops 
of  our  Moravian  Brethren’s  Church,  are  ordained 
Ministers  in  the  Church  of  God,  and  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  in  as  “broad”  and  “wide”  a sense,  with  an 
equally  “ample  ordination,”  as  the  Deacons,  Pres- 
byters and  Bishops  of  the  P.  E.  Church. 

Could  Bishop  Stevens  honestly  believe,  when  he 
wrote  and  spoke  the  words  of  his  “ First  Subsidiary 
Reason,”  after  having  made  such  ample  re-iterations 
of  his  esteem  and  love  for  his  Moravian  Brethren,  and 


>7 


of  his  conviction  as  to  the  VALIDITY  ol  Moravian 
Episcopal  ordination,  that  his  theory  as  to  the  lesser 
AMPLITUDE  of  this  ordination  was  shared  by  the 
Brethren's  Church? 

Could  Bishop  Stevens  honestly  believe  that,  the 
Bishops  of  our  church  would  allow  so  narrow  an  inter 
pretation  of  that  simple  Ordination  formula  in  our 
Liturgy,  as  to  preclude  the  idea  that  an  ordained 
Moravian  Deacon,  Presbyter  or  Bishop,  has  been  as 
amply  ordained  to  the  Ministry  in  the  Church  ot  God, 
and  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  laying  on  ol  the 
hands  of  the  venerable  Bishops  of  our  Moravian 
Brethren’s  Church,  in  the  name  ot  the  Triune  God,  as 
any  man  can  be  ordained  by  the  laying  on  ol  the 
hands  of  Bishop  Stevens,  who  professes  to  ordain  pat- 
excellence  to  the  Ministry  in  the  Church  of  t jod  ? 

There  is  nought  in  the  history  ol  the  Moravian 
Episcopate  ; nothing  in  the  official  action  of  our  Synods 
and  Conferences;  nothing  in  the  canon  law  ot  our 
Church,  which  justifies  such  an  interpretation  ot  the 
scope  and  intent  of  our  Ordination  formula. 

We  protest,  therefore,  against  a "First  Subsidiary 
Reason  ” which  implies  that  such  an  interpretation,  as 
Bishop  Stevens  gave,  is  authorized  and  entertained  by 
our  Brethren’s  Church;  and  we  assert  that,  it  was- 
neither  a wise,  nor  a bold,  nor  an  honest  thing,  for  any 
man  to  put  such  a construction  upon  our  Ordination 
formula,  with  such  an  implication. 

What  did  Bishop  Stevens  mean  when,  after  an- 
nouncing his  belief  in  the  VALIDITY  of  the  Moravian 
Episcopal  ordination,  he  suddenly  raised  this  question 
of  its  AMPLITUDE?  He  lays  one  formula,  the 

Moravian,  upon  the  other  formula,  the  Episcopalian, 

2 


i8 


and  says  that  his  formula  is  more  “ broad,”  more 
“ wide,”  and  hence  “ more  ample  ” than  is  our  formula, 
on  its  face. 

We  assert  that  the  Moravian  Church  understands 
her  formula  to  have  an  intent  and  scope  just  as 
"broad,”  and  as  "wide,”  and  as  “ample,”  as  the 
Episcopal  formula,  according  to  her  own  view  of 
that  intent  and  scope,  as  interpreted  by  her  Law- 
book. 

He  must  then  assert  a lesser  amplitude  in  the  very 
face  of  her  interpretation  of  her  own  formula,  in  the 
language  of  her  Law-book,  thus  denying  to  the 
Moravian  Brethren’s  Church  the  right  to  interpret  her 
own  formula. 

Or  does  Bishop  Stevens  mean  to  assert  that,  inde- 
pendently of  any  interpretation  of  the  Moravian  for- 
mula, Bishops  of  the  P.  E.  Church  can  and  do  ordain 
to  the  order  of  Deacon,  Presbyter  and  Bishop,  “ in  the 
Church  of  God,”  in  an  ampler  degree  than  it  is  pos- 
sible for  Moravian  Bishops  so  to  ordain,  because  the 
P.  E.  Church  of  God  is  ampler,  in  point  of  member- 
ship, social  prestige  and  wealth? 

It  is  not  the  first  time  in  my  Ministry,  nor  will  it"  be 
the  last  time,  that  I must  meet  invidious  criticisms  of 
our  Moravian  Church.  Let  me  relate  to  you  an 
incident  in  my  Ministry,  to  which  it  is  always  a com- 
fort and  a source  of  satisfaction  to  refer. 

When  in  October,  1874,  the  Provincial  authorities 
of  our  Church  deputed  me  to  convey,  as  correspond- 
ing delegate  to  the  General  Council  of  the  Congre- 
gational Churches,  then  in  session  in  New  Haven, 
Conn.,  the  fraternal  greetings  of  our  Moravian  Church, 
that  assembly,  of  Fathers  and  Brethren  in  Christ,  gave 


19 


me,  the  representative  of  the  smallest  Protestant 
•denomination  in  point  of  numbers,  as  fraternal  a wel- 
come as  was  given  the  representatives  of  the  larger 
denominations.  I shall  never  forget  the  session  of  the 
Council,  at  which  it  became  my  duty  to  present  the 
•official  greeting  of  our  Church.  The  Rev.  Dr.  O.  H. 
Tiffany,  then  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  now  of  this  city, 
had  spoken,  as  the  representative  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  as  a man  has  a right  to  speak  when 
he  represents  so  glorious  a constituency  as  the  millions 
•of  the  Methodist  host.  After  him  came  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Edson,  of  Indianapolis,  who.  with  all  the  exuberant 
vigor  of  his  western  Presbyterianism,  spoke  in  the 
name  of  the  re-united  Presbyterian  Church,  with  a 
fervor  and  an  unction  well  worthy  of  the  happy  event 
still  fresh  in  the  minds' and  hearts  of  his  auditors.  My 
name  was  next  called  by  the  Assistant  Moderator,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Magoun,  of  Iowa,  as  the  corresponding 
delegate  to  speak  the  word  of  fraternal  greeting  from 
the  Moravian  Church.  You  will  allow  me  to  repeat,  in 
substance,  what  it  was  given  me  to  say,  under  such 
circumstances,  after  having  expressed  my  regret  that 
an  older  and  more  worthy  representative  of  our 
Church  had  been  prevented  from  being  present  with 
them,  on  that  occasion. 

“Brethren,  you  will  remember  the  grand  Review  that  was  held 
in  Washington,  immediately  after  the  close  of  the  Rebellion,  when 
the  veterans  of  the  armies  of  the  Republic  passed  in  review  before 
the  great  Captain,  who  had  led  them  through  the  mighty  conflict 
to  its  victorious  issue.  Many  thousands  of  their  fellow  citizens,  from 
all  parts  of  this  northern  land,  hurried  to  Washington,  to  witness  the 
final  Review. 

“ As  the  ranks  of  veterans  came  sweeping  down  the  broad  Penn- 
sylvania avenue  of  our  capital  city,  in  Regiments,  Brigades, 


20 


Divisions,  Army  Corps  and  Grand  Divisions,  cheer  upon  cheer 
rang  out  in  gladsome  greeting.  But  why  was  it  that,  at  certain 
points  in  the  line  of  march,  the  crowds  of  enthusiastic  spectators 
grew  more  enthusiastic  in  their  cheering?  The  reason  was  readily 
apparent. 

“ It  was  caused  whenever  there  was  passing  in  review,  a Brigade,, 
whose  numbers  had  melted  down  to  that  of  a full  Regiment  ; a 
Regiment  scarcely  mustering  enough  survivors  to  count  a full 
Company;  a Company  of  whom  perhaps  only  a fde  of  veterans  sur- 
vived, only  men  enough  left,  of  those  who  had  once  swelled  the  ranks 
of  the  old  organization,  to  carry  the  battle-stained,  torn,  Colors;: 
sometimes,  too,  only  enough  of  the  old  flag  left,  to  show  the  colors, 
and  on  which  side  the  men  had  fought  ! 

“These  thinned  ranks  and  tattered  colors,  and  battle-scarred 
survivors,  called  forth  the  most  enthusiastic  recognition,  because 
they  had  come  forth  from  the  thickest  of  the  fight,  and  had  borne 
the  heat  and  burden  of  the  campaigns  of  the  war. 

Brethren,  at  the  close  of  the  Thirty  Years’  War  between  the 
Protestant  and  Papal  powers  of  Europe,  it  was  found  that  the  ex- 
treme Left  wing  of  the  Protestant  host  had  been  crushed,  and  by  the 
terms  of  the  Peace  which  ensued,  the  remnant  of  this  Left  wing, 
the  Protestant  Churches  of  Bohemia  and  Moravia,  were  left  alone 
to  face  the  fire  and  sword  of  the  Jesuit  oppressor,  unaided  by  their 
brethren  of  other  Protestant  lands. 

“ I represent,  to  day,  all  that  is  left  of  that  Church  of  heroic- 
martyrs  and  confessors.  We  are  but  few  in  number.  But  there  are 
enough  of  us  left  to  hold  up  the  old  Banner  of  the  Fathers  ; it  is  blood- 
stained and  battle-rent ; but  it  is  the  same  old  flag,  and  what  is  left  of 
it  tells  the  story  of  which  side  we  are  on  ; and  we  are  not  ashamed 
of  it. 

“ In  the  name  of  our  Moravian  Brethren’s  Church,  whose  fathers’ 
flag  we  still  hold  up,  under  it  to  carry  on  our  dear  Lord’s  work,  I 
greet  you,  and  pray  for  the  choicest  blessings  of  God  upon  your 
counsels  and  your  work  ! ” 

I shall  never  forget  the  applause  which  rang  through 
the  old  First  Church  of  Christ,  in  New  Haven,  when 
the  representatives  of  New  England  Congregation- 
alism, gathered  from  all  sections  of  our  American  land, 


responded  to  these  words  of  greeting.  They  made 
me  forget  that  my  Church  was  less  ample  in  point  of 
membership,  and  social  prestige  and  wealth,  by  their 
hearty  recognition  of  the  glorious  achievements  of  her 
heroic  past,  when  our  Fathers  sacrificed  every  thing, 
their  positions  of  highest  trust  in  the  state,  their  estates 
and  their  lives,  in  the  defence  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
lesus. 

And  whenever,  since  that  autumnal  day  in  1874.  1 
have  been  called  on  to  endure  contemptuous  criticism, 
1 revert  to  the  generous  enthusiasm  of  the  venerable 
Fathers  and  Brethren  in  Christian  Council  assembled 
in  Old  Center  Church,  on  the  New  Haven  Green  ; and 
the  “ample”  fellowship  in  all  the  “validity”  of  true- 
hearted Christian  brotherhood,  which  was  extended  to 
me  by  such  a representative  assembly  of  Christian 
scholarship  and  of  genuine  piety,  makes  amends  for 
any  contemptuous  slight  which  a so  called  “ church- 
manship,”  run  in  narrowest  of  sectarian  grooves,  may 
■essay  to  put  upon  the  Moravian  Brethren's  Church. 

Brethren,  our  number  is  not  large,  but  it  is  “ ample  ” 
enough  for  us  to  carry  the  old  standard  ; its  folds  are 
not  “ample,”  because  they  have  been  borne  through 
the  fire  and  blood  of  fiercest  persecution  ; but  there  is 
enough  of  the  old  flag  left  for  you  and  for  me  to  show 
which  side  we  are  on  ; and  nothing  that  our  brother  in 
the  P.  E.  Church  of  God  can  say^  about  us,  will  make 
us  ashamed  of.  our  colors,  and  of  the  cause  they 
represent. 

Or  does  Bishop  Stevens  mean  to  assert  the  lesser 
amplitude  of  the  Moravian  Episcopal  ordination,  in 
common  with  that  of  all  other  Protestant  denomina- 
tions, because,  We  of  the  P.  E.  Church  are  the  True 


22 


Church  of  God,  and  the  other  denominations  are  mere 
Sects  ? 

If  such  be  not  only  the  “ First  Subsidiary,”  but  the 
prime  “ Reason,”  for  asserting  this  lesser  amplitude  of 
the  Moravian  Episcopal  ordination,  then  it  should  be 
emphasized,  as  a fact,  and  all  the  more  emphatically 
emphasized  over  against  the  profuse,  un-official,  pro- 
fessions of  Episcopalian  friendship  and  fraternal  regard, 
that,  with  such  a spirit  of  Sectarian  Self-assertion  and 
Exclusivism  over  against  the  Brethren  of  other  Pro- 
testant Churches,  the  Moravian  Brethren’s  Church  is 
at  radical  variance. 

There  is  no  other  Protestant  denomination  from 
which  we  do  more  differ,  toto  coelo,  than  we  differ 
from  the  P.  E.  Church  of  God,  if  the  intent  and  scope 
of  this  “ First  Subsidiary  Reason  ” be,  to  assert  that, 
We  are  the  ampler  Church  of  God,  and  you  are 
only  the  “ restricted ” Brethren’s  Church. 

Our  Church,  which  officially  recognizes  as  “valid” 
and  “ample,”  the  ordination  of  all  the  other  Protestant 
Churches,  may,  surely,  and  does  demand  as  “ample” 
a recognition  for  herself,  from  them.  Our  Church  is 
bound  to  a recognition  of  the  fact  that,  at  least  as  much 
is  due  to  herself  as  she  accords  to  all  the  other  sister 
churches. 

It  was  this  fell  spirit  of  Sectarian  Self-assertion 
and  Exclusivism,  in  the  17th  century,  which  crushed 
out  our  Bohemian  and  Moravian  .churches,  their 
schools  and  seminaries  of  learning;  which  destroyed 
their  printing  presses  and  burnt  their  Bibles,  translated 
and  published  in  the  Slavic  vernacular;  which  drove 
into  exile,  into  prison,  and  to  the  stake  or  scaffold,  the 
Nobility  and  the  Peasantry  of  these  lands,  whilst 


23 


vieing  with  each  other  and  with  their  Clergy,  to  prove 
their  devotion  unto  the  death,  to  the  cause  of  an  open 
Bible,  and  of  the  Unity  of  all  Believers  in  Christ  Jesus. 

We  Moravians  have  learned  in  other  centuries,  and 
from  the  lips  of  red-cassocked  Jesuit  hierarchs,  what 
the  difference  is,  between  soft  speech  and  complaisant 
suavity  in  unofficial  laudation, and  the  hard,  formulated, 
assertion  of  Sectarian  dogma,  which  runs  into  the 
narrow  groove  of  hierarchical  official  action.  Those 
Jesuit  oppressors  and  usurpers,  in  the  Papal  Church  of 
God,  smiled,  with  quiet  satisfaction,  over  the  amplitude 
of  their  Church  regency,  but  our  heroic  fathers  died 
in  exile,  in  the  dungeon,  at  the  stake  or  on  the 
scaffold. 

Such  a prelatical  slap  in  the  face  as  Bishop  Stevens 
gave  the  Ministry  of  the  Moravian  Brethren’s  Church, 
from  his  place  in  the  pulpit  of  the  P.  E.  Church  of  the 
Atonement,  on  Friday  morning,  when  he  asserted, 
in  effect,  that  the  Deacons,  Presbyters  and  Bishops  of 
our  Moravian  Church  are  not  ordained  Ministers  in 
the  Church  of  Jesus  Church,  ought  to  preclude  any 
further  fulsome  adulation  of  the  Brethren’s  Church 
from  that  quarter,  in  regard  either  to  the  VALIDITY 
or  to,  what  Bishop  Stevens  suggests  as,  the  AMPLI- 
TUDE of  the  Episcopal  Ordination  of  this  venerable 
Protestant  Church  of  God. 

And  now  a word  as  to  that  Episcopal  Ordination, 
sometimes  styled  Apostolic  succession,”  which,  it 
is  now  admitted  with  substantial  unanimity  on 
the  part  of  historical  specialists,  acquainted  with  the 
results  of  thorough  investigation,  was  conferred,  in 
1467,  upon  the  first  Bishops  of  our  Church,  and  from 


24 

them  has  been  transmitted,  in  due  succession,  to  our 
day. 

What  does  the  Law-book  of  our  Church  say? 

Chapter  IX.  Paragraph  60.  “ Episcopal  Ordination,  which  has 
been  transmitted  to  us  from  the  ancient  Bohemian  and  Moravian 
Brethren’s  Church,  we,  therefore,  desire  to  hold  dear  and  precious, 
as  a Possession  (Depositum)  faithfully  guarded  by  that  venerable 
Church  amidst  Grievous  Afflictions  and  Bloody  Persecutions,  which, 
when  the  Church  seemed  extirpated,  was  still  maintained,  in  hope 
against  hope,  and  which,  at  last,  when  the  time  for  the  Church’s 
renewal  had  come,  was  handed  over  to  our  Fathers.  Upon  this, 
essentially,  rests  not  only  our  connection  with  the  ancient  Brethren’s 
Church,  but  also  our  right  to  call  ourselves  the  renewed  Brethren’s 
Church.” 

Now  where  did  our  Moravian  Fathers  of  the  ancient 
Church  obtain  this  Episcopal  Ordination  in  1467,  of 
which  our  Law-book  says,  that  they  “ faithfully 
guarded”  it  “amidst  Grievous  Afflictions  and  Bloody 
Persecutions,”  and  which  “was  handed  over  to  our 
Fathers”  of  the  renewed  Church,  on  March  13th  1735? 

I will  summon  only  one  witness,  of  the  many  unim- 
peachable witnesses  which  might  be  summoned,*  to 
testify  to  the  historical  fact  of  the  VALIDITY  of  this 
Episcopal  Ordination,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  our 
Brother  Stevens,  runs  back  pari  passu  with  that  of  the 
younger,  Anglican,  Protestant  Church,  to  the  times  of 
the  Apostles. 

Our  witness  is  a Roman  Catholic.  When  you  and 
I remember  what  the  position  of  the  Papal  church 
•over  against  our  Fathers  has  been,  the  testimony  of  a 
Roman  Catholic,  in  any  degree  favorable  to  us,  will  be 
apt  to  strike  us  as  of  peculiar  weight. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Encyclopedia  ( Kirchen  Lexi- 


* See  Dc  Schweiniu's  •*  Moravian  Episcopatk,'1  London,  1S77. 


con,  von  Wetzer  und  Welte,  Freiburg,  in  Breisgau, 
1848)  says,  Vol.  II,  page  65: 

“ A body  of  Waldenses  had  settled  on  the  Moravian  Austrian 
frontier,  of  whom  the  Brethren  knew  that  they  had  legitimate 
Bishops,  descended  from  the  Apostles  in  an  unbroken  succession.” 

“The  Brethren,  in  1467,  caused  three  (previously  ordained 
Priests)  to  be  consecrated  Bishops  with  the  imposition  of  hands  by 
the  [Austrian]  Waldensian,  Bishop  Stephen,  who  was  afterwards 
burned  at  Vienna.” 

Bishop  John  Amos  Comenius  puts  it  thus,  in  his 
Ratio  Discipline  : They  (Michael  Bradacius  and  two 

other  ordained  Priests)  were  sent  to  certain  Wal- 
denses on  the  confines  of  Austria  and  Moravia. 
“ They  find  their  Bishop  Stephen.”  The  Waldenses 
•“approve  of  and  congratulate”  the  Brethren  upon 
their  secession  from  the  Pope  and  the  Calistines. 
J‘ And  what  is  more,  conferring  upon  these  three  the 
power  to  make  Ministers,  they  create  them  Bishops 
with  the  imposition  of  hands,  and  send  them  back  to 
their  own.” 

Now  whence  did  Bishop  Stephen  and  his  colleagues, 
of  the  Austrian  Waldensian  Church,  secure  their 
Episcopal  Ordination,  which  they  conferred  subse- 
quently upon  Michael  Bradacius  and  his  two  colleagues, 
of  the  Moravian  Brethren’s  Church  ? 

Bishop  Stephen  with  his  colleague,  had  been  conse- 
• crated  by  their  predecessors,  Bishops  Frederic  Neme/, 
and  John  Wlach. 

Bishops  Nemez  and  Wlach,  previously  ordained  to 
the  Priesthood,  at  Prague,  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
Bishop  Nicholas  (Philibert),  a Legate  of  the  Council 
of  Basle,  on  the  14th  of  September,  1433,  were  sent 
to  Basle  in  the  summer  of  the  following  year,  1434 


26 


and  were  there  consecrated  Bishops,  in  a Convocation 
of  clergy,  by  Bishops  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
in  attendance  upon  the  Council  of  Basle. 

Bishops  Nemez  and  Wlach,  subsequently,  conse- 
crated as  their  successors  in  the  Waldensian  Church 
Stephen  and  his  colleague. 

Bishop  Stephen  and  his  colleague,  in  1467,  conse- 
crated Michael  Bradacius  and  his  two  colleagues,  at 
the  earnest  request  of  the  Synod  of  the  Moravian 
Brethren’s  Church,  to  the  Episcopate.  Bishop  Brada- 
cius and  the  other  two,  previous  to  joining  the  Mora- 
vian Brethren,  had  been  Episcopally  ordained  Priests, 
in  the  Roman  Catholic  and  Waldensian  Churches. 

Bishop  John  Holmes,  says  : (History  of  the  United  Brethren,  Vol.  I,  page 
52.)  The  first  question  which  came  before  the  Synod  of  1467,  was,  whether 
ordination  by  a number  of  Presbyters  so  as  equally  valid  with  that  performed  by 
a Bishop.  The  decision  of  the  Synod  was  to  this  effect ; — that  Presbyterian 
ordination  was  consonant  with  Apostolic  practice  (1  Tim.,  IV,  14),  and  the 
usage  of  the  Primitive  Church,  which  might  be  proved  from  the  writings  of  the 
Primitive  Fathers  ; consequently  the  newly  elected  ministers  might  be  ordained 
by  those  now  exercising  the  sacred  functions  of  the  Gospel  among  them,  and 
who  had  previously  been  Calixtine  clergymen  in  Priest’s  orders.  But  as  for 
many  ages  no  ordination  had  been  deemed  valid  in  the  reigning  church  unless 
performed  by  a Bishop,  they  resolved  to  use  every  possible  means  for  obtaining 
Episcopal  ordination,  that  their  enemies  might  thus  be  deprhied  of  every  pretext 
for  discrediting  the  Ministry  among  them." 

The  entire  succession  of  Bishops  from  1467  to  1865, 
in  the  subsequent  history  of  the  Brethren’s  Church,  is 
printed  in  the  “Moravian  Manual”  (pp.  108-111), 
embracing,  up  to  that  date,  167  Bishops.  This  is  the 
documentary  proof  of  the  language  of  our  Law-book, 
which  records  the  faithful  guardianship  exercised  in  all 
these  centuries  over  the  “possession,”  “dear  and 
precions,”  by  historical  association,  of  an  Ordination 
which  was  recognized  in  its  “ validity  ” alike  by  Papist 
foe  and  Protestant  friend.  A later  Stevens,  of  1881, 


2 7 


arises  with  friendly  “ pretext  for  discrediting''  the 
earlier  Stephen’s  Ordination,  of  1467,  as  less  “ample  ” 
than  his  own,  of  American  P.  E.  Church  of  God 
amplitude,  and  as,  therefore,  needing  to  be  amplified 
by  his  ordaining  touch. 

The  sum  and  substance  of  the  whole  matter  is 
simply  this:  If  there  be  any  such  thing  as  “ Apostolic 

succession,”  the  Moravian  Brethren’s  Church  has  it. 
If  there  be  any  such  thing  as  “Apostolic  succession,” 
and  if  there  be  anything  in  it,  the  Moravian  Brethren’s 
Church  has  whatever  there  is  in  it.  And  this  (act,  of 
her  “possession”  of  “Apostolic  succession,”  it  is 
which  so  stirs  up  all  the  Jesuitical  casuistry  of  modern 
American  Episcopalians,  to  rid  themselves  of  the 
logical  sequences  which  follow  from  their  arrogant 
assumption,  that  only  an  Episcopally  ordained  min- 
istry is  valid : that  only  a Church  with  an  “ apos- 
tolically”  ordained  Bishop  may  claim  to  be  a true 
Church;  and  that  any  such  PLpiscopal  Church,  which 
first  occupies  any  territory,  has  the  primacy,  absorbing 
the  jurisdiction.  For,  if  these  points  are  insisted  on, 
then  the  American  Moravian  Episcopal  Brethren’s 
Church  might  fairly  claim,  on  the  strength  of  Brother 
Stevens’  arrogant  assumption  over  against  all  the 
other  Protestant  denominations,  a primacy,  absorbing 
Episcopal  jurisdiction  in  America,*  because  the  Amer- 
ican Moravian  Episcopate  was  established  in  this 
country  in  1744,  forty-three  years  before  the  estab- 
lishment. in  1787,  of  the  Episcopate  of  the  American 
P.  E.  Church. 

* Consult  “ Protestant  Churchman ,”  New  York  City,  May-June,  18564 
“ Episcopal  Recorder ,”  Philadelphia,  June  17th,  1854,  May-June,  1856;  see 
also  Pamphlet  “ The  Two  Views  of  Episcopacy,  Old  and  New,"  1856. 


28 


The  recognition  of  the  validity  of  our  Moravian 
Episcopal  Ordination,  by  the  formal  Act  of  the  Parlia- 
ment of  Great  Britain,  in  1749,  and  by  the  whole  bench 
of  English  Bishops,  does  not  diminish  the  difficulties 
and  perplexities  of  the  situation,  for  our  P.  P2.  brethren 
in  America. 

Phe  Anglican  Church  has  always  officially  recog- 
nized the  oldest  of  the  sisterhood  of  Protestant 
Churches. 

Bishop  John  Amos  Comenius  was  consecrated  at 
Lissa,  in  1632,  the  54th  Bishop  in  the  line  of  unin- 
terrupted succession  from  Bishop  Michael  Bradacius, 
who  had  been  consecrated  in  1467. 

Bishop  Comenius  was  driven  into  exile  from  Fulnec, 
in  Moravia,  in  those  years  of  bloody  persecution, 
1621-24.  when  30,000  Moravian  families,  including 
500  families  of  noble  birth,  left  all  for  Christ’s  sake, 
and  went  into  exile. 

Bishop  John  Amos  Comenius  was  one  of  the  leading 
scholars  and  educators  of  the  times  in  which  he 
lived.  His  Latin  Grammar  ( Janua  Linguarum 
Reserata)  introduced  a new  method  for  the  study  of 
that  language.  Phe  book  was  translated  into  twelve 
European  languages,  besides  being  translated  into  the 
Arabic,  Persian,  Turkish  and  Mongolian  languages. 

During  the  years  of  his  exile,  Comenius  was  officially 
■summoned,  in  1641,  by  the  English  Parliament,  to 
visit  London,  to  reform  the  English  educational  system. 
Phe  troubles  in  Ireland  interfered  with  his  permanent 
■engagement  by  the  English  government.  In  1642  he 
left  London,  and  proceeded  to  Sweden,  to  which 
country  he  had  been  urgently  invited  in  1638,  by  the 


29 


Royal  Council,  and  in  that  country  he  enjoyed  the 
special  patronage  of  the  Chancellor  Oxenstierna. 

How  near  to  our  own  America  it  brings  this  illus- 
trious Divine  and  Bishop,  of  our  venerable  Mother 
Church,  to  read  this  tribute  to  his  apostolic  heroism 
and  eminent  scholarship,  from  the  pen  of  an  earlier  New 
Englander,  written  of  him  when  Bishop  Comenius  was  a 
resident  of  Amsterdam,  in  Holland.  1 read  this  pas- 
sage from  Cotton  Mather’s  Magnalia , published  in 
1702,  Vol.  IV,  Page  128. 

“ That  brave  old  man,  Johannes  Amos  Comenius,  the  fame  of 
whose  worth  has  been  trumpeted  as  far  as  more  than  three  languages 
(whereas  everyone  is  indebted  to  his  Janua)  can  carry  it,  was  agreed 
withal  by  our  Mr.  Winthrop,  in  his  travels  through  the  Low 
Countries,  to  come  over  into  New  England  and  illuminate  this 
College  (Harvard)  and  country  in  the  quality  of  President,  but  the 
solicitations  of  the  Swedish  Ambassador  diverting  him  another  way, 
that  incomparable  Moravian  became  not  an  American." 

The  aged  hero  appealed  to  the  kindly  offices  of 
the  Anglican  Church,  in  bchalt  of  the  broken  rem- 
nants of — "the  left  wing  of  the  Protestant  army  in  the 
Thirty  Years’  war” — the  Brethren’s  Church,  in  Moravia. 
His  great  anxiety  was  that  the  Moravian  Episcopal 
succession  be  maintained  intact ; that  it  might  not  die 
out;  in  vitw  of  the  time,  which  he  confidently  believed 
would  come,  when  God  would  “ Renew  our  Days  as 
of  old.  ’ After  a brief  residence  in  Poland,  Hungary 
and  Silesia,  he  spent  the  greater  part  of  the  last  years 
of  his  life  in  Holland,  where  lie  died  in  November, 
1671,  a broken-hearted  exile,  mourning  over  his 
beloved  Moravian  Zion’s  desolation. 

Let  me  now  read  to  you  a page,  or  two,  from 
Whately’s  " Gospel  in  Bohemia ,”  to  give  you  some 
impression  of  the  kind  of  men  who  constituted  the  lay 


30 


membership  of  the  old  Moravian  and  Bohemian 
Brethren’s  Church.  After  the  battle  of  Prague,  in 
1620,  which  was  favorable  to  the  Papal  supremacy, 

“ Fifty  of  the  most  distinguished  Noblemen  and  Gentlemen  of 
Prague,  whose  high  character  and  qualities  had  rendered  them  the 
ornaments  of  their  country”  “ were  seized,  arrested,  and  imprisoned 
in  the  citadel  of  Prague.”  “ On  the  19th  of  June,  1621,  the  sen- 
tence was  finally  pronounced  by  the  Judges.  Twenty-seven  of  the 
prisoners  were  condemned  to  death  by  beheading;  some  of  them 
were  to  lose  the  hand  or  the  tongue  first.  The  remainder  whose 
lives  were  spared,  were  condemned  to  exile  or  imprisonment  for 
life,  and  forfeiture  of  property.” 

“On  the  evening  of  June  21st,”  “the  Jesuits  and  Capuchins” 
J‘  crowded  about  the  prisoners,  harassing  them  (in  the  words  of  the 
Chronicle)  like  swarms  of  flies.  To  some  they  held  out  hopes  of 
life,  and  by  this  and  other  means,  they  endeavored  to  induce  them 
to  recant.  But  not  one  wavered.” 

It  was  a bright  June  morning,  when  these  noble 
martyrs  came  forth,  each,  in  his  turn,  mounting  the 
scaffold  to  receive  the  death-blow.  The  sound  of  the 
trumpets  and  drums  of  the  soldiery,  was  employed  to 
drown  the  lamentation  and  weeping  of  the  populace 
who  saw  these  heroes  die. 

“The  next  to  die  was  the  Baron  de  Budowa,  a man  advanced  in 
life,  but  full  of  animation  and  vigor,  and  richly  gifted  in  talents  and 
acquirements.  He  with  Otto  de  Loss,  were  officially  the  “ Watchers 
of  the  Crown.”  “The  Jesuits  harassed  him  much  upon  his  triai. 
Later  his  enemies  reproached  him  with  presumption  for  his  full  as- 
surance of  safety.” 

This  noble  Moravian  had  a clear  notion  of  the 
validity  and  amplitude  of  his  assured  hope. 

“ A Jesuit  [and  oh  ! how  suave  these  men  can  be  when  trying 
to  cheat  you  out  of  the  truth]  professed  to  quote  Scripture  to 
the  effect  that  a man  could  not  know  whether  he  was  the  subject  of 


3> 


grace  or  wrath.  Baron  de  Budowa  referred  to  the  Apostle’s  words. 

4 Henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a crown  of  Righteousness.'  ” 

“The  Jesuit  objected — ” 

The  suave  Papist  professed  to  doubt  the  validity  of 
the  Baron’s  assurance,  and  did  not  seem  to  know  all 
that  was  written  as  to  the  amplitude  of  the  assurance  : 

“The  Jesuit  objected  that  Saint  Paul  said  this  of  himself  only. 
Budowa  replied  by  quoting  the  end  of  the  verse.  “ Not  to  me  only 
but  unto  All  them  also  that  love  His  appearing  ! 

The  heroic  Baron  proved  to  the  ignorant  Jesuit, 
that  his  was  the  valid  assurance  of  a salvation  as 
“ample”  as  it  was  “valid.” 

“An  honor  awaits  thee,  my  grey  head,”  Budowa  said  on  the 
scaffold,  “ to  be  a Witness  for  the  Truth,  and  to  wear  the  Martyr’s 
crown.”  He  then  prayed  for  the  Church,  his  country  and  his 
enemies,  and,  commending  his  soul  to  God,  received  the  blow  of 
the  executioner.” 

Let  me  quote  only  one  more  incident  from  the 
bloody  tragedy  of  that  day  in  Prague. 

“ John  Kutnaw  was  the  youngest  of  the  victims,  lie  was  scarcely 
forty;  but  in  his  lofty  enthusiasm  and  joyful  firmness  he  almost 
surpassed  them  all.  A Jesuit  [another  suave  “ undoubted 
Catholic  ” brother]  who  had  vainly  endeavored  to  convert  Kut- 
naw, said  to  one  of  his  colleagues,  ‘ These  men  are  as  hard  as  roBks  ; 
they  cannot  be  moved.  ’ 

‘ Yes’  ’ said  Kutnaw  ; ‘you  are  right.  We  are  founded  on  Christ, 
a Rock  that  shall  never  be  moved  i 

“ Kutnaw  sang  a Bohemian  hymn  as  he  approached  the  scaffold. 
His  last  words  were,  ‘ I have  committed  no  crime ; I die  because  I 
have  been  faithful  to  my  Country  and  to  the  Gospel.  God  forgive 
my  enemies  ; they  know  not  what  they  do;  and  then,  Lord  Jesus, 
have  mercy  on  me,  and  receive  my  spirit.’  ” 

My  Brethren,  could  we  ask  for  a nobler  ancestry  ? 
Is  there  a nobler  heritage,  than  to  be  standing  in 


32 

due  order  of  succession  to  men  of  such  “ undoubted 
Apostolic”  heroism,  who  were  validly  and  “amply” 
anointed  from  on  high,  with  the  unction  of  the  Holy 
One,  to  know  the  truth,  and  once  having  known  it,  to 
hold  it  faithfully,  even  unto  death  ! 

When,  in  1722,  men  and  women,  awakened  by  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  left  their  Moravian  estates, 
to  find,  in  the  good  providence  of  God,  the  exiles" 
refuge  in  Saxony,  on  the  estate  of  a young  nobleman, 
under  whose  patronage  they  might  enjoy  a free  gos- 
pel, it  was  not  many  years  before  God  opened  a way 
for  the  transfer  to  these  descendants  of  the  old 
Moravians,  of  the  Episcopal  succession  of  their  fathers. 

The  grandson  of  the  sainted  John  Amos  Comenius, 
Bishop  Daniel  E,  Jablonsky,  who,  with  others,  had 
been  duly  consecrated  a Bishop,  in  expectation  of  a 
reorganization  of  the  Church  of  the  fathers,  consecrated 
at  Berlin,  March  13th,  1735,  with  the  written  concur- 
rence of  his  colleague,  the  aged  Bishop  Christian 
Sitkovius,  David  Nitschmann,  to  be  the  first  Bishop 
of  the  renewed  Brethren's  Church.  Bishop  David 
Nitschmann  came  to  America  that  same  year,  in  the 
same  ship  which  brought  John  and  Charles  Wesley  to 
Georgia,  and  after  almost  forty  years  of  faithful  and 
ample  work  for  the  Lord’s  cause,  on  sea  and  land  (he 
crossed  and  re-crossed  the  Atlantic),  this  worthy  suc- 
cessor, in  the  Episcopate,  of  Bkadacius  and  Comenius, 
rested  from  his  labors  on  the  8th  of  October,  1772. 
His  body  rests,  in  the  hope  of  a glorious  resurrection, 
in  the  old  God’s  Acre  of  the  Moravian  Church  at 
Bethlehem,  of  which  community  Bishop  Nitschmann 
was  the  founder,  in  1741. 

What  John  Wesley  thought  of  Nitschmann,  and  of 


33 


Spangenberg  (a  name  our  brother  Wm.  Bacon  Stevens 
professes  so  highly  to  esteem),  as  the  “undoubted 
Apostolic”  successors  of  the  lathers  of  the  ancient 
Church,  we  are  told  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Abel  Stevens, 
in  his  “ History  of  Methodism.” 

“Wesley’s  churchly  prejudices  were  rebuked  by  the  Apostolic 
purity  of  their  ecclesiastical  forms.  They  met,  he  says,  to  consult 
concerning  the  affairs  of  their  Church  ; Spangenberg  being  about  to 
go  to  Pennsylvania,  and  Bishop  Nitschmann  to  return  to  Germany.” 

Then  followed  an  ordination  by  Bishop  Nitschmann, 
which  Wesley  described. 

“ The  great  simplicity,  as  well  as  solemnity,  of  the  proceeding, 
almost  made  him  forget  the  1700  years  between  him  and  the 
Apostles,  and  imagine  himself  in  one  of  those  assemblies  where  form 
and  state  were  unknown,  but  Paul,  the  tent-maker,  or  Peter,  the 
fisherman,  presided,  with  the  demonstration  of  the  spirit  and  of 
power.” 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Abel  Stevens,  of  the  M.  E.  Church, 
does  not  quote  any  subsequent  opinion,  as  put  on 
record  by  Bishop  John  Wesley,  who  afterwards  came 
to  ordain  men  to  the  ministry  of  the  M.  E.  Church, 
using  the  formula,  “I  ordain  you  a Deacon  (Presbyter 
or  Bishop)  of  the  Church  of  God,”  that,  the  use  of  such 
a formula  made  the  ordination  “ more  ample”  than  the 
ordination  which  he  witnessed  that  day,  in  Georgia, 
when  Bishop  Nitschmann’s  Apostolic  simplicity  of  form 
almost  caused  the  Anglican  Episcopalian,  John  Wesley, 
to  forget  the  1 700  years  between  that  company  and 
Apostolic  times. 

It  was  reserved  for  an  abler  Stevens  of  the  P.  E. 
Church,  to  stretch  these  identical  words  so  broadly 
and  so  widely,  as  to  cause  the  words  of  saintly 
Nitschmann,  and  Zinzendorf,  and  Spangenberg,  to 

3 


34 


shrink  into  a less  “ample”  ordination  formula,  than 
that  with  which  this  same,  suave,  Stevens  re-ordained 
the  Moravian  Presbyter  of  1881,  with  the  P.  E. 
ordinal,  to  the  Diaconate  of  that  denomination. 

Let  Bishop  Stevens,  this  professed  friend  of  our 
Moravian  Brethren’s  Church,  follow  up  the  footsteps 
of  our  Missionaries  to  icy  Greenland,  and  tell  those 
successors  of  the  Apostles,  in  their  heroic  persistency 
to  compass  the  salvation  of  heathen  souls  by  preaching 
the  cross  of  Christ  for  seven  long,  weary,  years,  before 
a soul  would  heed  them,  that  his  “ undoubted  Apostolic” 
hands  must  needs  be  laid  upon  them,  to  bestow  upon 
them  “ a more  ample  ordination,”  thus  “widening  out 
(their)  commission  to  its  utmost  breadth  and  making 
it  commensurate  with  the  demands  of  a world-wide 
humanity ! ” 

Let  Bishop  Stevens  hurry  after  our  Missionaries, 
from  one  island  of  the  sea  to  another,  from  one  conti- 
nent to  another,  from  one  hemisphere  to  another,  and 
tell  those  Moravian  successors  of  the  Apostles, 
whether  immured  in  the  Leper  Hospital  of  Jerusalem, 
or  amid  the  Himalayan  mountains  in  the  Thibetan 
land,  in  Africa  or  in  Australia,  among  the  Indians  of 
America,  or  the  Negroes  of  Africa  ; tell  them  that  an 
“ undoubted  Apostolic”  touch,  from  his  hand  is  neces- 
sary, with  uttered  words  of  his  P.  E.  ordinal,  in  order 
that  their  “ commission  ” may  be  “ widened  out  ” to  an 
“utmost  breadth,”  “commensurate  with  the  demands 
of  a world-wicle  humanity  ! ” 

I reply  to  the  insult  put  upon  the  Apostolic 
Ministry  of  our  Moravian  Brethren’s  Church  by  the 
man  who  stands  in  the  place  of  William  White,  his 
apostolic  predecessor,  that  our  Moravian  tipiscopal 


35 


Ordination  is  not  so  “weak”  as  to  need  “ fortifying,” 
nor  so  “narrow”  as  to  need  “ amplifying,”  at  his  hands. 

Bishop  White,  who  presided  in  1789  over  the  con- 
vention held  for  the  organization  of  the  P.  E.  Church 
of  the  United  States,  was  ordained  to  the  Episcopate, 
in  that  denomination,  more  than  forty  years  after  the 
establishment  in  this  country  of  the  Moravian  Episco- 
pate in  1744,  and  William  White  had  special,  personal 
reasons  for  refusing,  at  any  time,  to  lend  himself  to 
any  official  or  unofficial  utterance  or  action,  in  the  way 
of  an  arrogant  attack  upon  the  validity  or  the  ampli- 
tude of  Moravian  Episcopal  Orders. 

But  there  is  another  name  that  comes  up,  unbidden, 
at  such  an  hour.  It  is  the  name  of  a man  whose  fame 
and  life-work,  now  that  he  has  gone  to  glory,  belong  to 
no  one  denomination,  but  to  the  Church  of  Christ  in 
America.  I refer  to  the  Saint  John  of  our  American 
Protestant  Church,  the  late  William  A.  Muhlenberg. 
In  the  time  in  which  the  good  providence  of  God  per- 
mitted me  to  aid  Dr.  Muhlenberg,  in  the  pastoral 
work  of  Saint  Luke’s  Hospital,  in  New  York  City,  his 
brotherly  words  breathed  a far  different  spirit,  and 
came  forth  in  the  utterance  of  an  “ ample”  fellowship, 
in  all  the  “validity”  of  a brotherhood,  that  recognized 
the  Ministry  of  the  Moravian  Brethren’s  Church,  since 
the  time  of  Stephen,  the  Bishop  of  1467,  as  ordained 
-with  a “Commission  ” which  needed  no  re  touching  at 
the  hands  of  Stevens,  the  Bishop  of  1881,  in  order  to 
its  “widening  out”  to  the  “utmost  breadth,”  to  make 
it  “ commensurate  with  the  demands  of  a world-wide 
humanity ! ” William  A.  Muhlenberg  recognized  the 
Episcopally  ordained  Ministry  of  the  Moravian  Breth- 
ren’s Church,  as  having  received,  in  the  language  of 


36 

our  Church’s  Constitution,  the  world  wide  “ Commission 
TO  FEED  THE  CHURCH  OF  GoD  (Acts  XX,  28)  WHICH 
He  HATH  PURCHASED  WITH  HlS  OWN  BLOOD.” 

I turn  away  from  the  arrogant  assumption  of 
Stevens,  to  the  ample  churchmanship  of  William  A. 
Muhlenberg,  whose  hand  I grasp,  in  the  spirit  of  the 
“valid  ” fellowship  and  “ample,”  of  which  the  younger 
Wesley  sings  : 

“ Let  saints  below  in  concert  sing 
With  those  to  glory  gone  : 

For  all  the  servants  of  our  King, 

In  heaven  and  earth,  are  One. 

“ One  family,  we  dwell  in  Him, 

One  Church,  above,  beneath, 

Though  now  divided  by  the  stream, 

The  narrow  stream  of  death. 

“ One  army  of  the  living  God, 

To  His  command  we  bow  ; 

Part  of  the  host  have  crossed  the  flood, 

And  part  are  crossing  now. 

“ E’en  now,  by  faith,  we  join  our  hands 
With  those  that  went  before  ; 

And  greet  the  blood-besprinkled  bands 
On  the  eternal  shore.” 

And  now  to  Thee,  the  One  Spirit,  be  glory,  with 
the  Father,  and  with  the  Son,  in  the  Church  which  is 
by  Christ  Jesus ; the  Holy,  Universal,  Christian 
Church,  in  the  Communion  of  Saints,  at  all  times,  and 
from  eternity  to  eternity:  Amen. 


Errata. — Page  23,  12th  line  from  bottom:  read  “ Christ''  for 
“Church.”  Page  36,  3d  line  from  bottom:  read  “ in,"  for  “by.” 


ANYBODY 

GOOD  ENOUGH  FOR 


^ GOOD  ENOUGH  FOR 

> ANYBODY. 


first  Moravian  Church, 

(Organized  1742.) 

Franklin  and  Wood  Streets. 
PHILADELPHIA. 

ALL  SEATS  FREE. 

Sunday  Services,*  10.30  A.  M.  and  7.30  P.  M. 
Sunday  School,  . . . . 2.30  “ 

Our  Pastor’s  Bible  Class,  . . 2.30  “ 

Wednesday  Evening  Bible  Talks,  . 745  “ 

Friday  Evening  Teachers’  and 

Prayer  Meeting,  . . . 7 45  “ 

Saturday  Afternoon  Sewing  School,  2.30  “ 

The  Membership,  Elders  and  Pastor,  bid  all  Friends 
and  Strangers  “Welcome,”  to  these  services. 
YOU  are  specially  invited. 

REV.  WM.  PNR Y RICE, 

PASTOR, 

823  N.  Seventh  Street. 

N.  B.— The  Social  Union  of  the  Members 
and  Friends  of  the  First  Moravian  Church, 
holds  its  regular  meeting  on  the  THIRD 
TUESDAY  in  every  month. 

♦ HairiiourSoci.il  Prayer Meeting,  in  the  Lecture- Room,  before  the 
Sunday  livening  Service. 

\ 


